Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Policy/2009-2010 archive

Move proposal

I think we should consider moving this page to Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Policy. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not opposed to that idea, but, to me, that should "always" be an ongoing project, as it should be considered that "policy" is always able to be improved. On a slightly different note, I think, (yes I am being semi-intentionally ridiculous here) that a policy should be made that guidelines be understood to be just that, guidelines, and not "policy" as many people want to do on GWW. 42 - talk 04:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that GWW does have a policy on guidelines. Note also that that has nothing to do with this section. I have no opinion on the move. - Tanetris 15:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

GWW also should have nothing to do with this wiki, other than being about another game in the series, yet some people want to insist that this wiki be almost exactly the same, messed up attitudes an all. 42 - talk 04:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I meant Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Projects/Policy, Poke's already fixed the move tag. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think moving the article to Projects would be misleading, as it would suggest that this is something going on right now, and the faster we get it done the better. Ie a project is meant to be completed and then ticked off. Whereas the reality is the opposite- we're essentially holding off on policy until there's a more significant userbase, and most of us are quite resistant to setting rules right now. 05:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This wiki's only existing project, the media watch project, is an open-ended project, and a few of GW1 wiki's projects, such as editing bots and events projects, and nearly all of Wikipedia's projects are open-ended. Another option would be to move it to Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Policy portal. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Policy portal. -- pling 16:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Policy portal sounds good to me. The current article should be reserved for a policy about policy, although I hope to God the day that article is written never comes. 02:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

iawtc. poke | talk 08:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Should we

move the GWW copyright policies to this wiki? I don't think any part of them would need to be changed, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong. --Kyoshi (Talk) 19:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Bump

The bump is at policies in general. I believe most of them are drafts, but since the wiki is becoming more and more active should we start opening discussions about what to implement? Just a thought. ShadowRunner 10:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I doubt copyright policy is going to change at all as a result of released information. I think we should take a look at some of them, yeah. --Kyoshi (Talk) 15:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Shadow. I think we should just work on the attacks and sign first. Ariyen 03:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

agreed--Icyyy Blue 03:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree on starting to work on some policies soon. The wiki is definitely picking up speed in terms of active members and the release of GW2 is also drawing closer. It would be fortunate to have some basic policies in place before the release happens. --Xeeron 10:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A system of documentation

The policy system must be created by documenting the tested solutions to problems experienced. When new problems arise, they can be solved by the usual methods: act, discuss, find a consensus. If similar problems arise in other places and that former solution works again (or the consensus and process is revised and improved), then it can be documented in an article in the Guild Wars 2 Wiki namespace. There it can serve as a guide or insight for new/inexperienced users, and be a reminder for the experienced ones, if similar issues arise again in future. As with any previously made decision, new circumstances or discussions can lead to new decisions and actions, and thus lead to the documentation's improvement.

The important thing to note is that this documentation isn't the ruler, decider, or unbendable law of future action; perceptions of such should be actively avoided and prevented. It's just an easy-to-find, 'written-down', concise and collected form of the community consensus that has previously improved the wiki.

Essentially, it's just noting that when people have disrupted discussions in the past with attacks on other contributors, they were asked to stop and focus on improving the wiki. It's noting that when users have engaged in revert wars, they were encouraged to go to the talk page, find an agreement and compromise if necessary. It's noting that continuing to be disruptive in these ways has previously led to blocks (implying that similar actions in future might lead to a similar conclusion, but still not 'regulating' the way blocks are handed out). It's noting the consistent reference formatting that has been achieved in articles and why it's effective, allowing other users to add or improve on that method if it meets the same purpose. It's noting that sysops have tools to block, delete, protect, and check IPs; and bureaucrats have tools to modify user rights and merge accounts.

In fact, I'd prefer not to call these things "policy". Seeing that word without realising what it means leads one to believe they're inherent rules to follow instead of helpful paths we've followed before and would be useful again. "Documentation" is a more accurate label; we document the game's status quo in the mainspace, and we document the wiki's status quo in the GW2W namespace.

pling 20:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I also wave to camels. Especially the recently added policy proposal have beed mindlessy added without even thinking about it (RfA policy without having any kind of idea about the adminship structure?). It's just as if people want to throw in proposals, without caring about other proposals (i.e. they ignore them), without even thinking about what is actually needed or appropriate, and without taking in the by now already endless discussions about some policy forms that happened since the start of this wiki.

What this wiki needs more than any other policy is time. Time to evolve, time to let the community grow, time to show an idea of what kind of rules we want to follow. Forcing over random policies just so that we have them won't help at all. poke | talk 21:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright policy can't be said to just plain "have worked" in the past, since it's actually policy that isn't going to change, foreseeably.

Aside from that, I think "documentation" is kind of a vague word, since they are in fact rules, just ones that can be shaped and changed over time. "Guidelines" would be more accurate, though seeing as we already have a section for that, maybe we need to look up more synonyms. Or we could combine the policy and guidelines and scrap the word policy. --Kyoshi (Talk) 23:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that merging the two into guidelines works. I think it matches what Pling says - it certainly gives the impression that it isn't hard and fast rules. Best practice and recommendations are other words which might fit. -- Aspectacle  00:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Best practice actually has a very encouraging tone to it. My vote would be between that and Guidelines. However, as far as I can tell, that leaves copyright on its own as the only true policy of the wiki. How should we go about still making that accessible, while not making it stick out oddly? --Kyoshi (Talk) 01:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The only policy I'm really worried about is the policy on policies. From there, I think the rest can be developed over time and when the need arrives. -hnzdvn 02:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is about whether we should have policies. The policy on policies if you will. If you have an opinion about policy which is different to pling's please say so here. :) -- Aspectacle  02:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Kyoshi, the copyright policy is an exception already - it's always the only unchangeable one. That would remain site policy (policy in the wider sense of the word; it doesn't require a specific label, it is what it is).

"they are in fact rules, just ones that can be shaped and changed over time". No, they are not rules, and I highlighted that specifically in my first post.

I don't think "guideline" describes well the type of articles I'm proposing, even if it is better than "policy". I'd like to avoid using that area of GWW nomenclature; this is (effectively) a new system, and "policy" and "guideline" already have connotations attached to them. That said, I don't want to spend much time deciding on the individual words and names; the content is more important, so let's focus on that. pling 03:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "Documentation" would be the right word for this kind of thing; it has already too many meanings on the wiki. How about just "Notices" instead? It does not have the meaning of policy or guidelines, in that both are trying to tell people what to do; it's instead telling people about something, not to do something. Erasculio 04:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Notice to me means something a bit transitory. However, noting is a word which pling used a lot when describing his idea. Notes by itself is probably not quite descriptive enough, but add basic qualifiers; Content notes, Conduct notes and it starts to sound more indicative of the content you might find there.

Something really informal like "How we like to do things" has some appeal to me - but it needs to be punchier than that. Still thinking about it... :) -- Aspectacle  04:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the word "policy" originated neither on GWW, nor gwiki, but on wikipedia and was taken from there to most other wikies. However, the wording is not really as important as the content behind it (though, it makes sense to chose something appropriate). And it is the content part where I want to partially disagree with Pling. Policies are indeed "formalized consensus". They are needed, since otherwise, we would get bogged down with ever-repeating discussions about the same facts. But it is not always sufficient to just wait and see what develops and later "document". Sometimes we have to be proactive and reach that consensus ahead of time. Let me give you 2 examples:

1. The procedure of chosing admins and bureaucrats. We can not wait for some form of election or RfA or dictatorship to appear on its own. There should be a process of deliberation that leads to a consensus that is then formalized.

2. To prevent too widely disagreeing sysop behavior. Imaging me going ahead and banning users (after one warning on their talk page) for having signatures longer than 25 letters. At the same time, Pling is not bothered at all by long signitures and even uses a blinking red one himself. And Erasculio is in between, advising new users that their sig should not be blinking, but otherwise, everything is ok. If all that happened at the same time, it would be chaos (and the users in question would be pissed off). Therefore it makes sense to discuss first, before acting inconsistent. And deciding on a policy is a way to formalize that discussion.

So my main point is: We can not always use a process of letting everything go with the flow now and documenting the best practice later. In several areas, it makes sense to exchange views and come to an agreement ahead of time. --Xeeron 14:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe we should have a form of consensus. We already know what we need, but there's not been consensus in deciding on what policies shall go in effect... We should have a policy - an Adminship type of what we all expect from sysops, bcrats, etc. by what we know and I know the original admins, brcrats, etc. knows what tools are used and so are helpful in creating a policy that we all can agree on and feel would best benefit for the wiki in having a form of fashion to follow. I know we don't want trolls or bad behaviours like people and buses or a lot that causes disruptiveness. Having some guidelines/policies can help. I don't see having a policy on policies can/would help as I don't think we really need that. It'd be redundant in my opinion. Ariyen 17:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

GWW and Wikipedia have a policy on policies, Ariyen... and I don't see it as redundant. The idea of "policies" growing on their own is a good one but, as Xeeron pointed out, that methodology might not work in all cases. "Policies" like the adminship policy, is one that I could see growing over time to what the community feels defines an admin and what their responsibilities might be. With that said, "policies" like the RFA policy need to be defined ahead of time; they can always be changed in the future if the need arises. Once all of this is decided I would like to see a page that defines how "policies" are created and how they should be viewed by the community. As to what they should be called, I'm actually wouldn't mind them continuing to be known as policy, this may be simply because I am used to the name but it seems more appropriate to me. --hnzdvn 19:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I do agree to that. I don't see why we can't do some policies now that's not going to be tweaked - as you said Rfa needs to be defined ahead of time. I disagree with others wanting the admin page first then rfa. rfa is more so nominations of Admins. I don't see that changing. Same with user space, npa, etc. I think those like that - that won't hardly changed. Can go on and be worked on and eventually placed. Many already have been and are in the works. I think once those gets implemented (if ever for any of that) then we can work on a policy for the policies. It's not going to be easy to work on a policy for policies imo without having some out there to help get that going. I think then we'd know what all to place in one, etc. making er having it be workable. Ariyen 21:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge that some issues can be discussed and 'decided' before they occur, just as with mainspace things. The most important thing to keep in mind (and remind others about) is the fluidity and flexibility of the "documentation", so that decisions-prior-to-the-fact can easily be improved after the fact. On GWW, that isn't/hasn't been kept in mind - bureaucrat elections and RfAs aren't great, for example.

The "policy on policies" (or.. "documentation on documentation" :P) would just be what my post plus improvements has described, assuming it gets support. The policy proposals currently in existence do not fit that goal or purpose. pling 22:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess I didn't completely understand what was being discussed here. I see your view now and I'm not opposed, but could you reiterate exactly what you'd like to happen? I'm a bit confused on that point. --Kyoshi (Talk) 01:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to clarify something, but which part exactly are you confused about? pling 18:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you want it to be clearer that the now-called policies are malleable. But I can't tell what you'd like to do to approach that goal. I did notice the renaming request but you specified that the content, in addition to the name, should be changed somehow. Maybe I missed something, or maybe I'm being dense about the content in this section, and I apologize in advance if either of those is the case. --Kyoshi (Talk) 21:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Many aspects of existing policy/proposals include theorycrafted attempts at future-proofing, things that don't really apply in GW2W reality, or excessive bureaucracy (e.g. RfA proposals, deletion codes, parts of NPA proposals). My proposal would avoid that and stick to documenting things that have worked before, so users have a kind of guide to know what might work later. It would also avoid 'law-language' like "you must do that" or "this is not allowed".

As highlighted by Xeeron, it might also note down the conclusions of discussions concerning things we haven't dealt with before. However, I don't think this would be very common, and would be easier to update than if it were policy.

I've created Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Practices and processes as a taster of this. pling 23:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, now I understand. And I don't really have any opposition to offer. The name is concise and descriptive, the content seems helpful. I'll take a closer look later. --Kyoshi (Talk) 01:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Due to the nature of Gw2w being new still and starting to be active. I don't think we should have Guild_Wars_2_Wiki:Practices_and_processes, but that we should have a few policies and guidelines for people to go by. To keep from having problems as seen in the past such as revert wars and the like. I like Guild_Wars_2_Wiki:Code_of_Conduct for how we accept the way people should or what we hope to expect from people's behavior's. An admin page to show what we expect from the sysops and b-crats - the system of management. A spirit policy to show what the spirit of the wiki is about and what we hope to maintain. The copyright policy to stay as it's needed. An rfa to assure that we'd want to keep the sysops we have here that have been godfathered and to see if there are others willing to step up to the plate of this wiki and our opinions. That's not as many policies as what's on gww, but I feel that should be enough. Now for guidelines so far - 1rv, formatting, image and pages. A guideline page to define what we'd expect, but what we're not inclined on seeing that could result in sysop discretion. Ariyen 19:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Before we start spamming GW2W and make it BAD:

It's time to start immediate focus on accepting policies, even in remote consensus! There's going to be edit/revert wars if this keeps up and traffic on GW2W seems to be increasing. We need a (temporary) admin policy, but more importantly; FORMATTING policies/guidelines. Before the stream of edits becomes unbearable, we need to set specifics towards editing. And as soon as possible. - Infinite - talk 21:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the very thing that will make the wiki "BAD", I'm afraid. GWW's early days exist as evidence, when I believe (relatively hasty) policy implementation was put before content improvement, much like you did here. pling 21:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I dislike the chaotic editing without a clear way to put things in line, we only need a general policy for the major topics. This is not a country, pointing out EVERY loophole on the Wiki is not something we should waste time on. - Infinite - talk 21:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Pling, considering you want the malleable nature of the "best practice documentation" emphasized, an early version of this "documentation" seems to pose less of a threat than it would have on a stricter system. Really, all we need right now is some rough guidelines around things for which we have a fair amount of content to document. We also don't want anything hasty, we just want some progress, and discussion on our individual policies/guidelines has been almost nonexistant for a while now. --Kyoshi (Talk) 00:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Kyoshi on this. Pling, while you can be a great sysop. Please don't be like someone who's a carebear and wants things done their way... While I respect your wishes, I think wiki needs to be a community for the majority or as a whole to agree on things.... for things to be done and discussed, agreed, etc... For us to work as a team until we can compromise, etc. I agree with this image on Wikipedia that speaks of consensus. I took it and made my own version of it that I have (and can upload if need be) I feel that there just may need to be a guideline about consensus so we don't forget (as I do some to most times... Blah @ me) and I wish that we could work more together and try less of either being a troll or positing things that could be taken negatively. Just trying to be helpful... Not ignorant. Ariyen 07:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Immediately ban everyone. Can we reach consensus on this? Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 07:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Important policies

Since the policy discussion has picked up speed lately, I would like to focus attention on 2-3 policies that, in my mind, deserve the most attention right now. Those being the NPA policy and the adminship policy (including the RFA one, if that is to be separate). Why are these more important? Because these are the areas where a lack of consensus could easily lead the wiki of track, or into vicious spats between users.

1. NPA, or more broadly a policy on user-to-user behavior is needed to set broad limits for how we will deal with each other. Those are needed, because there is a ton of different possible attitudes out there. When you serve the internet from 4chan to AOL forums, you'll encounter a host of different rule sets, from the very restrictive "no bad words" to almost everything allowed. Either can work, but not at the same place at the same time. So we should agree on what is ok when talking to other users and what is not. Failing to do so can easily lead to a ton of arguements out of simple missunderstanding once activity picks up.

2. The adminship policy is basic and needed, because we will soon reach a stage of the wiki where we will need to expand our sysop base. By that time, we need to have the basics down on what will be demanded of new sysops, what sysops will be responsible for and how they will be chosen.

All the policies I did not mention are not unimportant, and we should get around to discuss them too (and hopefully implement them without too long a wait), but, imo, they are not as urgent, in that the wiki can go no working, even when the game comes out, without them for a while. --Xeeron 14:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Since I have been busy and finally took a gander (taking a short break), I have noticed that the policies seemed to have stopped again. I am agreeing with Xeeron... However, I am going to add a comment to the community so far: I am proud to see people work as a team too. Ariyen 07:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Here's an idea. Guild_Wars_2_Wiki:Policy/Proposal Ariyen 18:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What about stopping suggesting old things as new? poke | talk 17:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Because so many things work and so many know that? Sides, works better when reworded and shortened and I've not been the only one. Might as well say that on other talk pages. It doesn't make sense to say that here to me. Ariyen 17:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It does make as much sense as specially noting people that there was another proposal added.. Apart from that it does make sense to make other people stop suggesting more and more duplicated "new" things. poke | talk 18:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)